Origin of Superstition?

[SolitaryWalker]

Before I begin writing this post, I shall ask you all in advance to not interpret what I am saying as an invitation to bash the NFs. This is not what I have in mind.

But I just wonder, where does mythology and all kinds of other superstitions really come from? They have plenty of original content and show a great deal of creativity on behalf of their makers.

Extroverted Intuition is the function that can help you see connections with just about anything, and connect many things that could be distantly related or possibly even not related at all.

Introverted Feeling is the function that longs to give us meaning in our lives, and for many ENFPs and INFPs, just about everything that happens has meaning. Soren Kierkegaard, a well known INFP mythologized about the occurence in his daily lives to make himself feel like it was God guiding him all along. I had an ENFP friend who frequently told me that she is not bitter about much of the suffering that she has to endure, because she knows that God wants her to go through that, and tries very hard to get herself to understand and accept that as a necessary thing to believe in.

So, Fi really longs for meaning in life because it feels for just about anything that comes in its way. Extroverted Intuition can tie the most bizzare and seemingly unrelated things together.

So go fiigure, Fi longs for meaning, and Ne provides one with plenty of opportunities on how this meaning can be satisfied, and plenty of ways how one can befool him/herself into believing just about anything that he/she wants to believe in.

Fyodor Dostoevsky, an INFJ, once had his characters in Brothers Karamazov say that if you really stick to God, he will guide you through just about anything, and once you get to heaven, you will see that you really did not do any decision making, it was God--like an invisible hand--guiding you all along.

Dostoevsky was a fairly superstitious man, and Kirilov, one of the heroes in the Possessed believed that Jesus Christ would make his advent in Russia, this was hardly an exaggeration of his maker's views. Dostoevsky also believed that Russia was God's chosen people, and he purposefully makes it go through so much suffering, because this meets his purpose, and in the end it will be shown that God has been guiding it through suffering all along.(Much like my ENFP friend who thinks that God makes her go through all the suffering in her life for her own good.). And incidentally, fame has suddenly decided on Dostoevsky when he reached the pinnacle of his superstitious non-sense at the Pushkin speech, where he argued for the necessity to worship the Russian soil, and why the reason that it is suffering is because God has chosen it for his purpose, and will greatly use it later on. Immediately after this he was hailed as a saint by his highly sentimental audience (comprised mainly of SFs). And we should also note that over 90% of the Russian population at the time was comprised of illiterate peasants.

Seems to me that superstition derives from one's need to give meaning to life, and perhaps the higher one has the need to give meaning to his life, the more likely he is to mythologize. Accordingly, SFs are probably the ones who buy into superstition the most, but I would guess that they are not creative enough to be the inventors of them, so, they would have to be NFs.

So I am guessing INFPs are the ones who first propound the most ingenious superstitious ideas, and ENFPs furthermore, after buying into them expound on what was said, as they use their Ne to see more connections that dont exist and build on top of what the INFPs have given them.

But as popularizers of mythology, I must say, ENFPs are without peer. INFPs definitely are the ones who must have started this in the first place. INFJs would do a great job of seeing more under-hand connections to give to INFPs to play around with for the sake of the latter having more ways of finding meaning in their lives.

Though ENFJs, who are of more practical mindset, would tend to be less into the invention of mythology and popularization of it, as they would be more concerned with elevating the morale of their surroundings instead of looking for a deep sense of meaning in their lives.

So here is what I have. INFPs first come up with superstitions, pass them down to the INFJs to give them more depth and see more esoteric connections. Than hand it back to the INFP, so the latter can adjust it more to their likings, turn it back to the INFJ, who would expound on them more. Than ENFP would scan more for the external connections of superstitions to daily lives and see the connections on the outside that are analogous to the intrinsic and esoteric connections that the INFJS, have discovered, so the ENFPs just pile on there. And finally the ENFJ comes up with the most innovative ways possible to sell them to the common man. You know, how hard they could push that mythology, just as hard ENTJs could assert about ideas and what they have derived on their own analysis.


So

INFP--Invents superstitions because of the drastic Fi need for meaning in life
INFJ---Magnifies the Fi-Ne vision with the esoteric Ni findings and tries to make superstitions as subjective as possible and thus immune to criticism.
ENFP--Connects the INFP-INFJ work of the inner world of superstition to the outer world and adds on more extrinsic connections and thus deepens many of the ideas offered by the previous two.
ENFJ-Sells superstitions and tries to show others what good they would do for society if they are to be accepted.

[Herr_Rosen]

It's a pretty well thought out theory on the generation of new religions, but the choice of wording it as "superstition" seems kind of aggressive.

While religions are primarily concerned with meaning in life. Rationals can arrive at superstitions simply buy making nonexistant connections of phenomena they have little or bad understanding of.

I can see an INTP viking thinking to himself "My goat drawn cart sounds like a quieter version of that thunderstorm we had last night. Maybe Thor has a goat drawn chariot and that thunder we hear is simply the wheels banging against the unever surface of the clouds"

And next thing you know, Thor is officialy the rider of a goat drawn chariot in Norse cannon. But in this case it still wouldn't be the generation of a new superstition so much as adding to the context of a larger one. *shrug*

[hereandnow]

Seems to me that superstition derives from one's need to give meaning to life, and perhaps the higher one has the need to give meaning to his life, the more likely he is to mythologize.

I think it's rather primal. Fear, it seems to me, is at the root of superstition. Mythology developed to explain those fears.

[SolitaryWalker]

I think it's rather primal. Fear, it seems to me, is at the root of superstition. Mythology developed to explain those fears.

This could give us ideas as to figure out why SJs tend to be the most superstitious of all.

Though I still think that mythology was inspired by people striving to find meaning in life.

INFPs are the most prolific mythologians because they have the strongest drive for meaning in life and are ingenious enough to come up with a complex mythology about it that would satisfy many credulous minds.

[venerationOFrabbits]

I didn't read your entire OP just so you know. Jung has described how and why Myths exist in a causal sense. From what I understand they are actually alive and exist in the collective unconscious. So you can never really pin down what exactly they are.

They are ever-changing entities of their own right, brought about by the collective unconscious of man, it has to do with psychic energy flow which he calls libido, which is not confined to Freud's definition of it, that of being pure sexual energy, Jung's definition is much broader.

I was thinking about this today, matter of fact. I was thinking about how repressed material left over as a result of conscious drives via utilizing your preferred attitude/function, places that energy of the repressed opposite attitude/function, (which is a natural consequence of developing your preference) into the personal unconscious, which, when a person gets too one-sided, will in turn seep back into personal consciousness, in other words the repressed energy will manifest itself via the undifferentiated primitive attitude/functions intruding or blocking conscious drives, otherwise know as, compulsive behavior. So if that be the case, then as we evolve as a species and our consciousness becomes more and more differentiated, then wouldn't the increase in differentiation have some type of affect on the collective unconscious? I suppose maybe that is what he was getting at when he was talking about myths being alive.

anyway not sure if you got that, or if I did for that matter

Recommended reading would be, of course, Jung's Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1. AKA Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.

Also, when asked about whether Jung believed in a God, Jung says he is a skeptic by his own nature and that he didn't need to believe. He knew it.

[Huston]

Before I begin writing this post, I shall ask you all in advance to not interpret what I am saying as an invitation to bash the NFs. This is not what I have in mind.

But I just wonder, where does mythology and all kinds of other superstitions really come from? They have plenty of original content and show a great deal of creativity on behalf of their makers.

The original content may not actually be orginal. As venerationofrabbits mentioned already about the contents coming from the collective unconscious. So this is in the realm of Ni's and Si's


Extroverted Intuition is the function that can help you see connections with just about anything, and connect many things that could be distantly related or possibly even not related at all.

Agree, but if you ting this in with superstition or mythologies, I find Ne being more like what Joseph Campbell did, and that was study of myths and their origins and difusion throughout different cultures.


Introverted Feeling is the function that longs to give us meaning in our lives, and for many ENFPs and INFPs, just about everything that happens has meaning. Soren Kierkegaard, a well known INFP mythologized about the occurence in his daily lives to make himself feel like it was God guiding him all along. I had an ENFP friend who frequently told me that she is not bitter about much of the suffering that she has to endure, because she knows that God wants her to go through that, and tries very hard to get herself to understand and accept that as a necessary thing to believe in.

And I have gotten this by WAY too many SP's and SJ's


So, Fi really longs for meaning in life because it feels for just about anything that comes in its way. Extroverted Intuition can tie the most bizzare and seemingly unrelated things together.

But that does not make a mythology or superstition.


So go fiigure, Fi longs for meaning, and Ne provides one with plenty of opportunities on how this meaning can be satisfied, and plenty of ways how one can befool him/herself into believing just about anything that he/she wants to believe in.

This goes a long with any type.


Fyodor Dostoevsky, an INFJ, once had his characters in Brothers Karamazov say that if you really stick to God, he will guide you through just about anything, and once you get to heaven, you will see that you really did not do any decision making, it was God--like an invisible hand--guiding you all along.

Dostoevsky was a fairly superstitious man, and Kirilov, one of the heroes in the Possessed believed that Jesus Christ would make his advent in Russia, this was hardly an exaggeration of his maker's views. Dostoevsky also believed that Russia was God's chosen people, and he purposefully makes it go through so much suffering, because this meets his purpose, and in the end it will be shown that God has been guiding it through suffering all along.(Much like my ENFP friend who thinks that God makes her go through all the suffering in her life for her own good.). And incidentally, fame has suddenly decided on Dostoevsky when he reached the pinnacle of his superstitious non-sense at the Pushkin speech, where he argued for the necessity to worship the Russian soil, and why the reason that it is suffering is because God has chosen it for his purpose, and will greatly use it later on. Immediately after this he was hailed as a saint by his highly sentimental audience (comprised mainly of SFs). And we should also note that over 90% of the Russian population at the time was comprised of illiterate peasants.

Yep, certianly sounds like an NJ. Like Jung said, if it was not for introverted intuition, there would have benn no Jewish prophets.


Seems to me that superstition derives from one's need to give meaning to life, and perhaps the higher one has the need to give meaning to his life, the more likely he is to mythologize. Accordingly, SFs are probably the ones who buy into superstition the most, but I would guess that they are not creative enough to be the inventors of them, so, they would have to be NFs.

That seems to be the thing, howver I think it is more a long the lines the creator of such things NJ's (minus the F) and the followers being the SJs.

[SolitaryWalker]

The original content may not actually be orginal. As venerationofrabbits mentioned already about the contents coming from the collective unconscious. So this is in the realm of Ni's and Si's



Agree, but if you ting this in with superstition or mythologies, I find Ne being more like what Joseph Campbell did, and that was study of myths and their origins and difusion throughout different cultures.



And I have gotten this by WAY too many SP's and SJ's



But that does not make a mythology or superstition.



This goes a long with any type.



Yep, certianly sounds like an NJ. Like Jung said, if it was not for introverted intuition, there would have benn no Jewish prophets.



That seems to be the thing, howver I think it is more a long the lines the creator of such things NJ's (minus the F) and the followers being the SJs.


Do you think that INFJs are more likely to create mythology than INTJs? Wouldnt the INTJs be tempted to put a cap on their Ni mythologizing with their Te, whilst INFJs wouldnt, because INTJs would see more contradictions in what they are saying? Whereas INFJs tend not to mind contradictions that much and certainly wouldnt try too hard to find them, whereas INTJs just might.

[booyalab]

Fyodor Dostoevsky, an INFJ, once had his characters in Brothers Karamazov say that if you really stick to God, he will guide you through just about anything, and once you get to heaven, you will see that you really did not do any decision making, it was God--like an invisible hand--guiding you all along.



your theory is alright for someone who doesn't know the history of religion.

Dostoevsky was clearly influenced by Calvinism, which is known to have spread to Eastern Europe ("the forgotten reformations")

oh and btw, NEVER confidently type someone who's dead and then use it as your main evidence for a thesis.

[SolitaryWalker]

your theory is alright for someone who doesn't know the history of religion.

Dostoevsky was clearly influenced by Calvinism, which is known to have spread to Eastern Europe ("the forgotten reformations")

oh and btw, NEVER confidently type someone who's dead and then use it as your main evidence for a thesis.

Its not a main thesis. Just supplemental material to my argument.

Dostoevsky did sound like a Calvinist in his writings a lot, so maybe true. Though from what I remember about him, he was a steadfast Russian Orthodox fanatic, I am really surprised that the Orthodox Church may have been so profoundly influenced by Calvinism at the time.

Which of his novels(works about him) have you read?

And how would knowledge of the history of religion change anything?

[booyalab]

Its not a main thesis. Just supplemental material to my argument.

Dostoevsky did sound like a Calvinist in his writings a lot, so maybe true. Though from what I remember about him, he was a steadfast Russian Orthodox fanatic, I am really surprised that the Orthodox Church may have been so profoundly influenced by Calvinism at the time.

Which of his novels(works about him) have you read?

i've read Crime and Punishment.


Dostoevsky couldn't be a calvinist and a steadfast Russian Orthodox fanatic. Orthodoxy means that the emphasis is on dogmatic preservation rather than adaptation. Calvinism is NOT orthodox. Sure, someone that attended a Russian Orthodox church could call themselves a calvinist, but they would not be 'orthodox' by definition.

[Huston]

Do you think that INFJs are more likely to create mythology than INTJs? Wouldnt the INTJs be tempted to put a cap on their Ni mythologizing with their Te, whilst INFJs wouldnt, because INTJs would see more contradictions in what they are saying? Whereas INFJs tend not to mind contradictions that much and certainly wouldnt try too hard to find them, whereas INTJs just might.

Where do you get the idea that T's avoid contradiction while F's ignore it?

As for who is more capable at creating mythologies, I would think that goes to the Si's as a whole, while the prophets and seers are the Ni's as a whole.

But I have a question, why do you equate superstition with mythologies? They are two completely different things

If you take a mythology like the Garden of Eden, it will most likely be the Si's who will actually belief this event hapened, while the Ni's will see it as something symbolic. This is the result of interpretation of unconscious images.

As for superstiiton, this is some rationalization process of unknown events. An irrational fear like god, or more specific, god making it rain. I do not think this type of rationlization is exclusive to any one function or type.

[Nightning]

*blinks* I like the idea about the NT and NF circle of coming up with theories... but I don't think NFs themselves would actively promote superstition. At least I can't imagine myself doing so. Although mythology certainly fits the bill in terms of INFJ thinking. It's like what Huston said about symbolic representation... assuming they believe gods exists, thunder could "sound like an angry god throwing a fit". Mention something similar to a sensor and they might interpret that as a god is actually having a fit, and that produced thunder.

Just a random thought...

[SolitaryWalker]

Where do you get the idea that T's avoid contradiction while F's ignore it?

As for who is more capable at creating mythologies, I would think that goes to the Si's as a whole, while the prophets and seers are the Ni's as a whole.

But I have a question, why do you equate superstition with mythologies? They are two completely different things

If you take a mythology like the Garden of Eden, it will most likely be the Si's who will actually belief this event hapened, while the Ni's will see it as something symbolic. This is the result of interpretation of unconscious images.

As for superstiiton, this is some rationalization process of unknown events. An irrational fear like god, or more specific, god making it rain. I do not think this type of rationlization is exclusive to any one function or type.

Wait a second... never mind equating mythology with superstition I dont want to get into the debate over linguistics... but if T really is about applying logic... wouldnt this mean that a Thinker is more likely to SEE contradictions than a Feeler... dont thinkers tend to be bothered more by contradictions than feelers? Seems to me that NTs tend to build their outlook on life based on thoughts and NFs base it more on relationships...

Though honestly it sounds bizarre to me for someone to suggest that F is not any more about avoiding contradictions than T is..

Nevermind superstition... lets just focus on mythology for now... Sis arent very creative so they will be just the ones believing in mythology and not inventing it...

[SolitaryWalker]

*blinks* I like the idea about the NT and NF circle of coming up with theories... but I don't think NFs themselves would actively promote superstition. At least I can't imagine myself doing so. Although mythology certainly fits the bill in terms of INFJ thinking. It's like what Huston said about symbolic representation... assuming they believe gods exists, thunder could "sound like an angry god throwing a fit". Mention something similar to a sensor and they might interpret that as a god is actually having a fit, and that produced thunder.

Just a random thought...

They would not promote something that they consciously recognized as superstition... but their errors in reasoning can certainly compell them to advocate it as an idea that they think would help people..

But I will have to agree that Sensors tend to endorse magical thinking much more than NFs...Lack of intuition disables them from understanding complex phenomena so then they just have to assume that things happen on their own right.. puff... just like that... magically..

So... I guess we should say that superstition is an Si thing..and NFs have taken it further and put all of those superstitions together into a one big mythological system.

I am really not sure maybe its the SJs and SPs.. SJs especially who are our primary mythologians NFs are quite rational comparing to most types...

Keirsey reports that they have more in common with the NTs than the other 2 and SJs the least.. and Si is the function that relies on testimony the most... so there is no surprise about SJs valuing the most what NTs tend to distrust the most...:Titular authority.

[SolitaryWalker]

i've read Crime and Punishment.


Dostoevsky couldn't be a calvinist and a steadfast Russian Orthodox fanatic. Orthodoxy means that the emphasis is on dogmatic preservation rather than adaptation. Calvinism is NOT orthodox. Sure, someone that attended a Russian Orthodox church could call themselves a calvinist, but they would not be 'orthodox' by definition.

Do we have biographical evidence of him being influenced by Calvanism. Just seeing layers of Calvinist thought in his novels may not be enough.

[Nightning]

Nevermind superstition... lets just focus on mythology for now... Sis arent very creative so they will be just the ones believing in mythology and not inventing it...

Mythology is interesting to NFs, but interest and belief are two seperate things. I agree that NFs might have "invented" it to conceptualize the world, but it's more of a Si thing than Ni to accept these ideas as truth. To us, mythology like any other theories are symbolic representations of the world... rather than truth. Therefore it doesn't matter whether there are contradictions between them and the real world. It's just a model! Not the real thing.

Now will INTJs be as taken in as INFJs? Simply because most mythological tales concerns people interactions rather than purely descriptions of the world... I will guess no. However it's still models for understanding life... so I think INTJs will still have an interest in it.

[SolitaryWalker]

Mythology is interesting to NFs, but interest and belief are two seperate things. I agree that NFs might have "invented" it to conceptualize the world, but it's more of a Si thing than Ni to accept these ideas as truth. To us, mythology like any other theories are symbolic representations of the world... rather than truth. Therefore it doesn't matter whether there are contradictions between them and the real world. It's just a model! Not the real thing.

Now will INTJs be as taken in as INFJs? Simply because most mythological tales concerns people interactions rather than purely descriptions of the world... I will guess no. However it's still models for understanding life... so I think INTJs will still have an interest in it.

So mythology starts tentative with NFs and becomes dogmatic with SJs? And to a lesser degree with SPs?

[Huston]

Wait a second... never mind equating mythology with superstition I dont want to get into the debate over linguistics... but if T really is about applying logic... wouldnt this mean that a Thinker is more likely to SEE contradictions than a Feeler... dont thinkers tend to be bothered more by contradictions than feelers? Seems to me that NTs tend to build their outlook on life based on thoughts and NFs base it more on relationships...

Though honestly it sounds bizarre to me for someone to suggest that F is not any more about avoiding contradictions than T is..

Logic has nothing to do with thinking. How the logic is put forth does. Both use logic and both can reject just equally so.


Nevermind superstition... lets just focus on mythology for now... Sis arent very creative so they will be just the ones believing in mythology and not inventing it...

Who says Si's are not creative. Don't be so fucking confined to only your perceptions. All functions are equally capable of creativity. Just because it does not coincide with your view or definition of creativity does not mean they have none. They will use their extroverted judgement function to find meaning behind the objects they see, and they may gather some very odd and strange things. I don't know how it would be any different then the introvert intuitive who does the same thing.

[SolitaryWalker]

Logic has nothing to do with thinking. How the logic is put forth does. Both use logic and both can reject just equally so.



Who says Si's are not creative. Don't be so fucking confined to only your perceptions. All functions are equally capable of creativity. Just because it does not coincide with your view or definition of creativity does not mean they have none. They will use their extroverted judgement function to find meaning behind the objects they see, and they may gather some very odd and strange things. I don't know how it would be any different then the introvert intuitive who does the same thing.

Give me a break... Ns tend to do better with imagination that Ss... this does not mean that Ss have nothing to do with creativity... just not as good as Ns are at it... all in all you dont find too many Ss writing novels like dostoevksy and tolstoy did or coming up with complex theories in physics and philosophy... they tend not to be that imaginative... nonetheless Fs definitely apply logic less than Ts.... logical thinking comes to them with greater difficulty than to Ts...doesnt mean they dont have it at all... but its ridiculous to say that Ts tend not to be any less logical than Fs...

Thats just like saying that Fs tend not to be any better at understanding emotion and giving support than Ts... this whole argument is beyond ludicrous.

[Huston]

Give me a break... Ns tend to do better with imagination that Ss... this does not mean that Ss have nothing to do with creativity... just not as good as Ns are at it... all in all you dont find too many Ss writing novels like dostoevksy and tolstoy did or coming up with complex theories in physics and philosophy... they tend not to be that imaginative...

Now you are equating imagination with creativity... not that sensors are less prone to such things.

Must I repeat myself.

All functions are equally capable of creativity. Just because it does not coincide with your view or definition of creativity does not mean they have none. Oh, ok not as good.

I have no clue why I bother with your prejudice attitude.


nonetheless Fs definitely apply logic less than Ts.... logical thinking comes to them with greater difficulty than to Ts...doesnt mean they dont have it at all...

They do not definitely apply anything less. It depends on the choice made whether logic is thrown out or not by Ts or Fs.


but its ridiculous to say that Ts tend not to be any less logical than Fs...

Who said anything about this?


Thats just like saying that Fs tend not to be any better at understanding emotion and giving support than Ts... this whole argument is beyond ludicrous.

Ludicrous? You are saying logic is what makes up thinking. It does not. Thinking yeilds life to a set formula, a concept or idea. That formula can be completely illogical.

[SolitaryWalker]

Now you are equating imagination with creativity... not that sensors are less prone to such things.

Must I repeat myself.

All functions are equally capable of creativity. Just because it does not coincide with your view or definition of creativity does not mean they have none. Oh, ok not as good.

I have no clue why I bother with your prejudice attitude.



They do not definitely apply anything less. It depends on the choice made whether logic is thrown out or not by Ts or Fs.



Who said anything about this?



Ludicrous? You are saying logic is what makes up thinking. It does not. Thinking yeilds life to a set formula, a concept or idea. That formula can be completely illogical.


There are two kinds of creativity. Innovative and adaptive. Innovative is the kind that you need to write a novel. Adaptive is one that you need to keep society stable.

Sensors tend not to be as creative as iNtuitors in the innovative sense.

I think that it is clear that Feelers are more likely to have logical contradictions in their ideas.

Were you arguing against that?

Nonetheless it should be said that Thinkers tend to see 'good thinking' as the same thing as logical and efficient thinking. Ti puts a higher value on logic than Te. The latte thought puts a higher premium on being efficient, but they still would want the external world to make sense. And they judge what makes sense, based on how logical it is. Definitely logic is fundamental to Thinking in terms of typology.

Once again, even though Thinking can produce plans and formulas for solutions that are completely illogical, thinkers tend to strive to be as logical as possible.

Hence:Thinking by definition of itself is not logical and can produce illogical things, but it also prompts the possessor of that function to seek logical coherence.

[hereandnow]

Seawolf,

Back to superstition - What did you develop the OP from? Inspired by a book, article, etc. I'd like to read more on it.

[SolitaryWalker]

Seawolf,

Back to superstition - What did you develop the OP from? Inspired by a book, article, etc. I'd like to read more on it.

I was not consciously influenced by any one particular book, but this is what may have subtly influenced what has been in my head recently: Sartre-Nausea, Either/Or-Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky-The Devils, Voltaire-Candide, Kierkegaard-Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard-Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard- Works of Love, Kierkegaard-Concept of Dread, Nietzsche-Thus Spoke Zarathustra

So, I guess eixstentialist literature in general is something that you may want to look into. It is my personal opinion though, that Dostoevksy is by far the best of all existentialist writers. Though Kierkegaard may be an easier guide for you: his books tend to be relatively short and are written in a philosophical expository style. Dostoevsky wrote lengthy novels, and only very few can really get you to the heart of existentialism.

Though his Notes From Underground is less than 200 pages long, and perfectly outlines the core of Existentialist philosophy. Brothers Karamazov gives you a more detailed perspective on what you get in Notes From Underground, but it is very lengthy, over 1000 pages long.

Also, Sartre's Nausea is about the same size as Notes From Underground, if you read those two: you should well know by then if existentialism is something that you want to spend more time on.

[hereandnow]

I was not consciously influenced by any one particular book, but this is what may have subtly influenced what has been in my head recently: Sartre-Nausea, Either/Or-Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky-The Devils, Voltaire-Candide, Kierkegaard-Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard-Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard- Works of Love, Kierkegaard-Concept of Dread, Nietzsche-Thus Spoke Zarathustra

So, I guess eixstentialist literature in general is something that you may want to look into. It is my personal opinion though, that Dostoevksy is by far the best of all existentialist writers. Though Kierkegaard may be an easier guide for you: his books tend to be relatively short and are written in a philosophical expository style. Dostoevsky wrote lengthy novels, and only very few can really get you to the heart of existentialism.

Though his Notes From Underground is less than 200 pages long, and perfectly outlines the core of Existentialist philosophy. Brothers Karamazov gives you a more detailed perspective on what you get in Notes From Underground, but it is very lengthy, over 1000 pages long.

Also, Sartre's Nausea is about the same size as Notes From Underground, if you read those two: you should well know by then if existentialism is something that you want to spend more time on.


I read Dostoevsky, Sartre, and Kierkegaard in the 80's. My question had to do with something you were reading "right now" that influenced you to make the OP.

[SolitaryWalker]

I read Dostoevsky, Sartre, and Kierkegaard in the 80's. My question had to do with something you were reading "right now" that influenced you to make the OP.

I've read all of that in the last 5 days. So technically, yes this is what I've been reading right now, this streamed from the general diet of existentialist thought.

How, you may ask, did I read all of that so fast?

Thanks to:http://www.asseenontvnetwork.com/eyeq/?cid=130412

Though all in all, you will find plenty of inspiration for ideas like this in existentialism, I would think.

[Huston]

There are two kinds of creativity. Innovative and adaptive. Innovative is the kind that you need to write a novel. Adaptive is one that you need to keep society stable.

Sensors tend not to be as creative as iNtuitors in the innovative sense.

I would not consider superstition innovative. I would also argue the kind of creativity.

Only two, LOL!


I think that it is clear that Feelers are more likely to have logical contradictions in their ideas.

Were you arguing against that?

Yes, thinkers are just a likely, in fact most likely more.


Nonetheless it should be said that Thinkers tend to see 'good thinking' as the same thing as logical and efficient thinking.

Whatever "good thinking" is.


Ti puts a higher value on logic than Te.

The latte thought puts a higher premium on being efficient, but they still would want the external world to make sense.

And they judge what makes sense, based on how logical it is. Definitely logic is fundamental to Thinking in terms of typology.

Once again, even though Thinking can produce plans and formulas for solutions that are completely illogical, thinkers tend to strive to be as logical as possible.

Hence:Thinking by definition of itself is not logical and can produce illogical things, but it also prompts the possessor of that function to seek logical coherence.

But that is not logic, it is the illusion of logic. They are just as likely to make up or believe in utter nonsense. They may think they are being logical, but that is not the case. A feeler may not even have logic enter the judgement, but it can be just as or even more logical than thinkers judgement.

[SolitaryWalker]

I would not consider superstition innovative. I would also argue the kind of creativity.

Only two, LOL!



Yes, thinkers are just a likely, in fact most likely more.



Whatever "good thinking" is.



But that is not logic, it is the illusion of logic. They are just as likely to make up or believe in utter nonsense. They may think they are being logical, but that is not the case. A feeler may not even have logic enter the judgement, but it can be just as or even more logical than thinkers judgement.


Hell, you sure are a skeptic, but nonetheless I find this very interesting.

There are two examples of how a thinker can have a logical argument and arrive at utter non-sense. One is the famous Zeno's Paradoxes(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes), where he has two impeccably logical premises that lead to an erroneous conclusion. And the other is the Gettier example, where he has two unconnected premises lead to a true conclusion, but the truth of the conclusion was arrived at accidentally as the synthesis of premises had nothing to do with it.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier-style_example)





Though, I still reject your premise that thinkers are not any less likely to incur logical contradictions than feelers. Most thinkers tend to see reality in terms of :If A then B, If B then C. And so on : I mean if I follow Aristotle's syllogism perfectly how could I be wrong. I understand that thinker's can have logical illusions, but since they tend to play with it so much, dont you think that they would be better at arriving at rational conclusions by making less logical errors than feelers who dont deal with logic at all. This just has to be true if we believe that logic is the guide to truth.


Basically thinker's are more likely to do better at reasoning because the key to doing well with reasoning consists in using logic well. Thinkers would use logic better than feelers simply because they've had more practice with it. Though we do have a problem of accepting false premises (Zeno's paradoxes) that follow a good logical pattern and hence lead to an erroneous conclusion, so this is a good example of how a logician can go off in the wrong direction with confidence. But as far as the Gettier example is concerned, that is not being logical at all, that was a violation of Aristotle's syllogism. That really did have a component of superstition to it: like if I know where Ben is, then I know where my neighbor is and I know where Jon is. I know where Ben is so,I know that Jon is in Jamaica. This is like magical thinking, mysteriously, because I know where Ben is, I somehow know that Jon is in Jamaica. The reality of it is that me knowing where Ben is and me knowing that Jon is in Jamaica have no connection to one another, this is accidental. And this is a great example of how mythology gets started, people seeing connections in things that are really not there. In fact this is something that a feeler would come up with. Try to use logic to explain things and then abuse it, and hence be confident in their conclusion because they think they had a good logical argument for it. This happens very easily to NFs. They feel so strongly about the argument, then, because their F is subordinate to their T, the T generates whatever lame argument that could support their feelings and they accept it as true because it appears logical and correct. You know just like a thinker could try to fool himself into believing that he feels the way he thinks he should, much like a feeler could fool himself into believing that he thinks exactly like what his feelings point at. For a thinker the argument needs to be logical in order to be accepted, for a feeler it only has to SEEM logical. Everybody uses logic to explain how the world works and to build systems, even mythological systems need logic of some kind. They generate from people putting forth connections that dont exist, and the Gettier example has shown how doing this is oftenly a result of logical errors.


You would not consider superstition innovative? Think about how creative the Greek Mythologians were? And how much valid insight there is there about human nature and human relationships? Can you really say that people who are not very imaginative could have come up with all of that? They were using the same kind of imagination that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were to write their novels.

Nevermind how many kinds of creativity there are, I am sure we could come up with a whole bunch of them, but I think its possible to simplify them to just this: Adaptive Creativity(S), and Innovative Creativity (N).

[Huston]

You would not consider superstition innovative?

If you want to just use two forms of creativity, superstition would be adaptive, not innovative. It is like the example Herr Rosen gave.


Think about how creative the Greek Mythologians were?

The greek mythologies are combination of historical (most likely beginnig with oral history) events elevated through their relation to unconscious images, or developed completely from them.

Lets take the image of the snake and woman.

An N would take this and form the Kundalini. This feminine energy that travel up the spin like the snake.
An S would take this and form something more anthropomorphic. Something like the Minoan Serpent Goddess or Cannanite Asherah.


Can you really say that people who are not very imaginative could have come up with all of that?

If they are not imaginative, of course not.

[SolitaryWalker]

You would not consider superstition innovative?

If you want to just use two forms of creativity, superstition would be adaptive, not innovative. It is like the example Herr Rosen gave.



The greek mythologies are combination of historical (most likely beginnig with oral history) events elevated through their relation to unconscious images, or developed completely from them.

Lets take the image of the snake and woman.

An N would take this and form the Kundalini. This feminine energy that travel up the spin like the snake.
An S would take this and form something more anthropomorphic. Something like the Minoan Serpent Goddess or Cannanite Asherah.



If they are not imaginative, of course not.

Ok, so sensors tend to be imaginative much like iNtuitors, though what they have in ther imagination is stuff that relates to the world, not something that is completely off the wall.

Hence, this is why they came up with anthropomorphism, whilst iNtuitors would not think about God having worldly and humanly features,and try to think of him as something entirely other-worldly and something that we have never seen.

You may be right that adaptive creativity is what you need to do mythology, especially that it all came from history. Sis tend to know history very well, and hence they could just piece all that they have come up with together and hence there we go:they have a full blown mythological system based on what they learned in history, and thus applied worldly qualities to describe things that they consider otherworldly.

So, you do have to be imaginative, though not innovative in a sense that iNtuitors tend to be.

[omnirook]

VenerationOFRabbits mentioned Jung. I'll mention Joseph Campbell.

Jung put out a small volume toward the end of his life called "Man and His Symbols." The book represented one of Jung's few attempts to make his work accessible to the general public. I recommend the book as a very enlightening introduction to the world of myth and symbol, where myth and symbol come from, how they operate, and how they evolve - indeed will continue to evolve as long as human beings continue to exist.

Joseph Campbell was a mythologist who carried on much of the work that Sir James Frazier and Karl Jung had started. Campbell was a prolific writer. To get a good survey course in his theories, I recommend his "Masks of God" series, 4 volumes, "Primitive Mythology," "Eastern Mythology," "Western Mythology," and "Creative Mythology."

Campbell insisted that mankind will never be rid of myths because myths are what drive humanity to act and that even reason and logic and mathematical and scientific proofs are a form of mythology - in other words, myths are nothing more than (and nothing less than!) the stories that we tell ourselves and others to make life in human terms possible. W/o myths, there is no inspiration. W/o inspiration, there is no motive. W/o motive, nothing gets done. Each human society, every civilization has had as theme and driving force an underlying myth that its people believed in - until they no longer believed in it. Then the society, the civilization, died. (Our society is, of course, moribund, which accounts for much of the pain that one sees in the world. People are in the early stages of of the mourning process - denial - not believing in the myth but wanting to believe, giving staunch lip-service to the myth, but the heart has gone out the verbiage. Nothing can ever save a society once it has lost faith in its founding myth. A new myth must be invented, from which a new society will emerge.)

In "Creative Mythology," Campbell argues that a myth is alive and well until religion (and the state - they are pretty much the same thing) gets its hand on the myth - then it becomes dogma, which Campbell describes as "mummiform" - a mummy that the priests prop up and force their followers to worship while they themselves pile up wealth and power. "Smoke and mirrors" is another way of putting it. Campbell argued that mankind will gradually return to its earlier, highly personal myth-making mode or else become extinct. We can no longer support a myth that will inform whole societies. Instead, each individual must find his own way, his own path, become a Spiritual Warrior in his own right. The age of the great world faiths that was ushered in around 500 BC w/the birth of Buddhism and which culminated about 1000 years later w/the birth of Islam is passing.

I agree - the monotheistic faiths and their attendant religions are dying, no matter that the number of the "faithful" is statistically rising - the "faithful" are desperate and are clinging to straws that cannot support their weight. All of the major religions died the moment that orthodoxy was introduced and would have fallen to dust had they not been pasted over and supported by the state. But even the paste has begun to crack - and the state is widely discredited (at last!).

Today there is potential for each person to create his/her own "Myths to Live by" - another one of Campbell's books, wherein Campbell - w/o crediting him! - picks up Aleister Crowley's thread - that literal belief in myths is unnecessary - that literal belief in God is unnecessary. Educated human beings are free to pick and choose and play w/the myths in the spirit in which they were created - pretend! "Literal truth" is the death rattle of any religion - because then the religion becomes fixed and cannot be used in the way that people need to use it - freely, artisitically, w/o a need to justify it or explain it. "Where words turn back" as the Hindus say - where one cannot explain why because why is beyond comprehension. Or as the Shinto priest told Campbell: "We do not have a dogma, we do not have a theory. We just dance."

[macr0]

Campbell insisted that mankind will never be rid of myths because myths are what drive humanity to act and that even reason and logic and mathematical and scientific proofs are a form of mythology - in other words, myths are nothing more than (and nothing less than!) the stories that we tell ourselves and others to make life in human terms possible. W/o myths, there is no inspiration. W/o inspiration, there is no motive. W/o motive, nothing gets done. Each human society, every civilization has had as theme and driving force an underlying myth that its people believed in - until they no longer believed in it. Then the society, the civilization, died. (Our society is, of course, moribund, which accounts for much of the pain that one sees in the world. People are in the early stages of of the mourning process - denial - not believing in the myth but wanting to believe, giving staunch lip-service to the myth, but the heart has gone out the verbiage. Nothing can ever save a society once it has lost faith in its founding myth. A new myth must be invented, from which a new society will emerge.)


That's a fascinating hypothesis. It's obviously true that to maintain social cohesion, you need an over-arching idealization. Myths provide a natural vehicle for such concepts.

I think it's important to note that there is nothing wrong with the myth concept in general. The first thing to mind is religion and, as you say, dogma. However, this need not be so. I wonder what could all be classified in the American myth system. Consumerism? Protestant work ethic? Capitalism? Traditional Family Values? Innovation? These things are injected by the religion, government, media, society gestalt.

I would say that these things appeal to our superstitious natures. Instead of being driven by mother nature, we are driven by man-made nature (which we can call myths).

If someone is a consumerist and their friend gets a bigger TV, I could see a reaction that appeals to something primal and instinctual.

If I am fighting with my wife and believe in Traditional Family Values, then I'm going to a serious emotional push-pull inside to do the right thing. The right thing here is buried deep inside from childhood and continuously reinforced.

The day-to-day hot buttons and shit people worry about all have to be driven by something programmed in the individual.

Funny thing is, we need these things. We need to worry about stuff. It's just a question of what.

In the best possible world, which is something I believe your post alluded to, it's like a salad bar. Take what you want. Leave the rest.

[SolitaryWalker]

I read Dostoevsky, Sartre, and Kierkegaard in the 80's. My question had to do with something you were reading "right now" that influenced you to make the OP.

Dear Hereandnow,

I think I've just thought of the answer that you were looking for all along. This is probably the book that first inspired my thinking about the origin of superstition:David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and History of Natural Religion. These two usually come in one package, though for the sake of the history of superstition you want to pay more attention to the latter than the former. They are both really short, the first is slightly over 120 pages and the second is about 60.

Existentialism was not the inspiration in itself, it only expounded on my interests in the idea of meaning of life as presented in religions and how people frequently fall back on mythology and superstition to give themselves illusory meaning to be content with. Whereas, I would argue that true meaning comes from genuine reflection on the individual level, and on a more externally focused level through personal intimacy comradory with others. Religions can satisfy the latter, though not the former, and I'd deem the former to be more important than the latter.

[omnirook]

That's a fascinating hypothesis. It's obviously true that to maintain social cohesion, you need an over-arching idealization. Myths provide a natural vehicle for such concepts.

I think it's important to note that there is nothing wrong with the myth concept in general. The first thing to mind is religion and, as you say, dogma. However, this need not be so. I wonder what could all be classified in the American myth system. Consumerism? Protestant work ethic? Capitalism? Traditional Family Values? Innovation? These things are injected by the religion, government, media, society gestalt.

Cases for the others could be made out, of course.

However, it has long been my pet belief that consumerism (shopping) is the (semi)(un)-official state religion in America.

No matter what happens here, somehow it boils down to an effort to part the public from its money, getting them to buy crap being the favorite method.

After all, crap bought is at least temporarily satisfying and piles up and feeds into the other great love - "winning" by having a bigger pile of crap than the next guy.

Charity is also a well-loved means, but charity is a racket that requires greater skill, and those who purchase good feelings about themselves too often make the disgusting demand that they be shown that their purchase has value - I mean, there's no crap to take home and pile up, so at least a few after photo's of little Consuela smiling have to be taken. The financial rewards for the operators of charities are greater, yes, but the stress level is higher - the customers will complain once they realize that they have been cheated.


I would say that these things appeal to our superstitious natures. Instead of being driven by mother nature, we are driven by man-made nature (which we can call myths).

I'm one of those people who cannot always immediately explain why something said does not sit right w/him. What you have said here is, I think, essentially correct - except that human nature was made by Mother Nature!

I run into a lot of trouble w/people because my beliefs about humanity could - at a glance - be taken as misanthropic. In other words, I refuse to accept that there is "hope" of humanity ever becoming other than what it has always been. To me, the real misanthropes are the ones who believe that humanity can become "better." We are no better - and no worse - than the first humans - and our descendants, so long as they can still be called human, will be no better - or worse - than we are.

The human battle - the battle to be a whole and fully realized person - starts all over w/each birth and ends in defeat w/each death. This is as it must be.


If someone is a consumerist and their friend gets a bigger TV, I could see a reaction that appeals to something primal and instinctual.

If I am fighting with my wife and believe in Traditional Family Values, then I'm going to a serious emotional push-pull inside to do the right thing. The right thing here is buried deep inside from childhood and continuously reinforced.

The day-to-day hot buttons and shit people worry about all have to be driven by something programmed in the individual.

Funny thing is, we need these things. We need to worry about stuff. It's just a question of what.

In the best possible world, which is something I believe your post alluded to, it's like a salad bar. Take what you want. Leave the rest.

Yes. Take what you want - and what you need. Leave the rest. And don't be judgemental about what the next guy is taking and leaving!

When the desire to control others dies, one graduates. There is nothing to do then but move on to the next hurdle in the course of life - but, damn - I'm so tired of the control bit. Fact is - most people are, have always been, will always be - harmless. Leave them alone!

[macr0]

I'm one of those people who cannot always immediately explain why something said does not sit right w/him. What you have said here is, I think, essentially correct - except that human nature was made by Mother Nature!


Well, of course. I'm mainly talking about the difference between pre-civilization stimuli and current-day stimuli (the sociology). This given in the context of the thread: superstition.



I run into a lot of trouble w/people because my beliefs about humanity could - at a glance - be taken as misanthropic. In other words, I refuse to accept that there is "hope" of humanity ever becoming other than what it has always been. To me, the real misanthropes are the ones who believe that humanity can become "better." We are no better - and no worse - than the first humans - and our descendants, so long as they can still be called human, will be no better - or worse - than we are.

The human battle - the battle to be a whole and fully realized person - starts all over w/each birth and ends in defeat w/each death. This is as it must be.


If we're talking about truth, then I agree with you completely. If we're talking about applicability and world view, I have to disagree.

I can't find the right words to say this, but I read once, somewhere: man was created stupid for the intelligent reason to survive. This mainly applies to religion, dogma, myths and all of the things "free thinkers" love to hate.

I am less of a theist hater (when I'm serious) because I think it's inappropriate to attack a trait that all people share but experience (and therefore express) in different ways. That doesn't mean I don't attack the idea. It allows me to remove the idea from the person.

There's a delicate balance between falling into the ease of sheepishness and pushing into the pain of free thought. If you push too far into free thought, you are driven to indecisiveness and groundlessness, negatively affecting your mental health. You need enough decided myth that appears to your three rhetorical senses.

Self-labeled free thinkers would attack this notion, appealing to the quest for truth above all other things. The sad fact is: the truth is that you will never have all of the truth. With this fact, conscientious myth subscription is a great stepping stone in the climb to peace, and ultimately happiness.

I place the idea of bettering humanity in the same category as these decided myths.

Until we develop the second man, then we're stuck with our gene pool (with unknown amounts of variation). However, that doesn't mean that the idea is a bad one. Cold hard facts alone do not a good world view make.

It's kind of like a "the journey is it's own reward. It doesn't matter if you will never reach your destination" sort of thing. Hell, that sounds like a good description of life in general to me.

So I can see the possible alignment with misanthropy. The pessimistic view rings with a quote from a video game I enjoy: "the unplanned organism is a question asked by nature and answered by death"

I would call it jadedness. I, too, am jaded. It's strange how you can look at "humanity" and be optimistic while at the same time bitching constantly about the way humanity is.

[hereandnow]

I run into a lot of trouble w/people because my beliefs about humanity could - at a glance - be taken as misanthropic. In other words, I refuse to accept that there is "hope" of humanity ever becoming other than what it has always been. To me, the real misanthropes are the ones who believe that humanity can become "better." We are no better - and no worse - than the first humans - and our descendants, so long as they can still be called human, will be no better - or worse - than we are.



This view, which I share in the main, is principally the reason I'm often called a misanthrope or curmudgeon. For all of our philosophy, our achievements, and every other "positive" development, the end is death. Even our children (I have no children), the hope for a new generation, will perish and on it will go. We are no less barabaric than our ancestors and any hope that our future will be one of peace and bliss is woefully shortsighted, IMO.

[Blueberry11]

I am not very familiar with the theories surrounding superstition, but I think it is important to differentiate it from myth. I realize that the two intersect: Superstition can include the belief that a cat crossing your path is good or bad luck (depending on where you are from). This is connected to myths about the nature of cats. But, while myth is something past to explain something present, superstition predicts future events. The former gives humans a way to understand their environment while the latter gives them a sense of control over it by giving them the means to predict (and even shape -- through charms, spells, etc.) the otherwise uncertain outcomes of their lives.

Most superstitious activities are concerned with an outcome that the superstition claims to help predict. Reading tea leaves, keeping a lucky charm, etc. do not explain events that happen necessarily (baseball players don't just give up their lucky charms after a bad day, convinced that they never worked in the first place.) They only give the person who believes a sense that they might know the unknown (the future) and have some small part in controlling it. It's more about security and power than explanation in my opinion.

[Blackwater]

id very much like to understand your individual reasoning behind you casting the historical figures in your article as you do. I, too, have studied the life and character of these people and I have a somewhat different oppinion that you do.

i know that the castings are the traditional ones but i get the feeling that there is more of a rationale behind your agreement with kierkegaard as infp, for example, than simple list-picking

[SolitaryWalker]

I think that INFPs are probably most concerned with giving meaning to their lives and they use their abstract minds to come up with ingenious ways of doing this. Many feeling oriented individuals buy into what they say because of its compelling warmth and sincerity.

[Larkin]

I think that it probably bad luck to have a discussion on this topic.

[nagrom]

We are no less barbaric than our ancestors and any hope that our future will be one of peace and bliss is woefully shortsighted, IMO.

I wonder what your rationale for this belief is. Who influenced you to have these ideas?

Bert disagrees:
"Consider for a moment what our planet is and what it might be. At present, for most, there is toil and hunger, constant danger, more hatred than love. There could be a happy world, where co-operation was more in evidence than competition, and monotonous work is done by machines, where what is lovely in nature is not destroyed to make room for hideous machines whose sole business is to kill, and where to promote joy is more respected than to produce mountains of corpses. Do not say this is impossible: it is not. It waits only for men to desire it more than the infliction of torture. There is an artist imprisoned in each one of us. Let him loose to spread joy everywhere."
- Bertrand Russell, 1967, age 95
http://russell.mcmaster.ca/bressay.htm

(This is interesting and tangentially related:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/42)

[Blackwater]

I think that INFPs are probably most concerned with giving meaning to their lives and they use their abstract minds to come up with ingenious ways of doing this. Many feeling oriented individuals buy into what they say because of its compelling warmth and sincerity.

I was hoping that you could be swayed to go into the individual details here.

Disregarding your post, why couldn't kierkegaard be ENFP? his most well known quote, that you have to understand life backwards points to E as defined by myers herself in gifts differing.

kierkegaard also invented seversal characters whom he speaks through in his writing. and while this fact is not particularly interesting in a philosophical sense, i goes a long way in revealing his character to us.

inventing different rhetorical personas is a very enxp to me. people like kant and hegel struggled all their lives to mainstain consistant philsophical systems. kierkegaard, nietzsche and foucault seem to come from an entirely different angle than the usual INxx

i know that i am opposing established consensus in saying this. that is why i stress the important of actual arguments.

[SolitaryWalker]

I was hoping that you could be swayed to go into the individual details here.

Disregarding your post, why couldn't kierkegaard be ENFP? his most well known quote, that you have to understand life backwards points to E as defined by myers herself in gifts differing.

kierkegaard also invented seversal characters whom he speaks through in his writing. and while this fact is not particularly interesting in a philosophical sense, i goes a long way in revealing his character to us.

inventing different rhetorical personas is a very enxp to me. people like kant and hegel struggled all their lives to mainstain consistant philsophical systems. kierkegaard, nietzsche and foucault seem to come from an entirely different angle than the usual INxx

i know that i am opposing established consensus in saying this. that is why i stress the important of actual arguments.


Kierkegaard couldnt be ENFP because he was always known for being very solitary, even as a child. He spent the rest of his days living a hermit-like lifestyle. And character inventing is more of a property of Fi rather than Ne. Ne can help you see multiple perspectives clearly, yet Fi can give you the empathy to acquire the psychological depth that his characters were fueled with.

[Rice-Tactics]

It comes from lack of understanding. Thousands of years ago people had no concrete way of analyzing or explaining the world as it is. Superstitions and god in general came from this fear of the unknown. It gave meaning, hope, and comfort for society. I don't think its fair to single out types for this debate. At that particular period of time an INTP could have easily felt as comforted by the notion of god as any other type. We all contributed to its creation.

[SolitaryWalker]

It comes from lack of understanding. Thousands of years ago people had no concrete way of analyzing or explaining the world as it is. Superstitions and god in general came from this fear of the unknown. It gave meaning, hope, and comfort for society. I don't think its fair to single out types for this debate. At that particular period of time an INTP could have easily felt as comforted by the notion of god as any other type. We all contributed to its creation.


INTPs would probably be disinclined to believe in something that there is no rational justification for. By and large, inventing mythological explanations for phenomena that we can not understand stems from debasement of reason in favor of appeasing our emotional needs first and foremost and secondly our Intuitions.

[Rice-Tactics]

INTPs would probably be disinclined to believe in something that there is no rational justification for. By and large, inventing mythological explanations for phenomena that we can not understand stems from debasement of reason in favor of appeasing our emotional needs first and foremost and secondly our Intuitions.

But there are and where religious INTP's. Just because we may be less likely affected by religion it doesn't mean we couldn't have played a role in its creation. Religion was the science of the past and up until the last... lets say 150 years it was a dominant factor in our society and to some degree still is today. This dispute between who created the superstitions aspect of our society cannot be labeled onto any particular type of person as we have no concrete evidence of the person or persons type. I think its interesting how you want to dig deeper into this but to be honest I don't see where your going with it. Anyone can create a religion within their head but very few can make millions believe in it without some type of general explanation for their reason to believe. If everyone lived in the ideal society (pretend religion was never there) we would have no need for any religious beliefs except to relieve the fear of death. Basically what I'm trying to say is that its impossible to say who created it but it is possible to understand why people believe in it.

[SolitaryWalker]

But there are and where religious INTP's. Just because we may be less likely affected by religion it doesn't mean we couldn't have played a role in its creation. Religion was the science of the past and up until the last... lets say 150 years it was a dominant factor in our society and to some degree still is today. This dispute between who created the superstitions aspect of our society cannot be labeled onto any particular type of person as we have no concrete evidence of the person or persons type. I think its interesting how you want to dig deeper into this but to be honest I don't see where your going with it. Anyone can create a religion within their head but very few can make millions believe in it without some type of general explanation for their reason to believe. If everyone lived in the ideal society (pretend religion was never there) we would have no need for any religious beliefs except to relieve the fear of death. Basically what I'm trying to say is that its impossible to say who created it but it is possible to understand why people believe in it.

INTPs can mythologize, yet are less likely than the Feeling oriented type. Especially the Intuitive-Feeling, Sensing-Feeling tend not to go off in that direction too far as they often lack the imagination to come up with broad enough ideas concerning eschatology to make their own ideology based on it.

[Braith]

Very funny!!!!!!!

I am an ENFP and this thread interested me greatly. I would say that I am no longer supersitious (I listened to the Stevie WOnder song and took note lolol) However, I used to be very much so. I almost had a OCD.... Well who am I kidding I did have an OCD. You know the kind that is all about superstitions and 'magical thinking' I suffered really badly with it for about 2 years and I do think that as an ENFP I am resonsible for popularizing it. All of my friendship group bar one or two of the boys are now very superstitious which is annoying for me because I am trying to keep it in check. Same with astrology but that's another story. Interesting thread though......

XB

[lowtech redneck]

Superstition came about as a result of the following sentences and the circumstances leading to them;

Aaaaah! We're all gonna die!
Waaaah! Grandma's dead, I want to see her again!
I need rain to grow my crops, but I can't control the weather. What to do, what to do...
How can we make sure the peasants don't revolt?

[djm]

I have not read through the thread yet (at five pages it may take a while), but for an insight into how superstitions may have their genesis it is well worth reading Penguin Island by Anatole France.

http://manybooks.net/titles/franceanetext99pngwn10.html

[alienhated]

Unknown + Imagination = Superstition

[diogenesaraujo]

Unknown + Imagination = Superstition

Agreed. Its the trial of explainnig the unknown.

[egregious cerebrum]

evolved tendency towards type 1 errors?
maybe

[Kazan]

Though I still think that mythology was inspired by people striving to find meaning in life.
.

I think it started out as a primal fear thing, and then as our societies became more complex (hence, our minds becoming more complex) we put that meaning of life stuff into it. That seems like a distinctly human thing to do.

There is evidence that Neanderthals had some sort of a concept of "religion" or at least the beginings of spirituality. Some groups buried their dead with flowers and food and other items. Indicating (but not proving---I'm sort of a skeptic of it myself), that the Neanderthals had a concept of life after death.

Okay. I've just thought htis through and I don't think the Neanderthal point had anything to do with anything. But I still thought it was a pretty cool science thing, so I'm going to leave it in anyway, but don't think it proves my point. Which seems sort of insane. But. Meh.

[poetrygirl]

Ignorance will breed superstition in a society regardless of the varied personalities within it.

[nork]

The level of belief someone has in a myth will motivate their creativity correspondingly.